---
type: claim
domain: ai-alignment
description: Cross-domain convergence between international law and AI safety research on the fundamental limits of encoding human values in autonomous systems
confidence: experimental
source: ASIL Insights Vol. 29 (2026), SIPRI (2025), cross-referenced with alignment literature
created: 2026-04-04
title: "Legal scholars and AI alignment researchers independently converged on the same core problem: AI cannot implement human value judgments reliably, as evidenced by IHL proportionality requirements and alignment specification challenges both identifying irreducible human judgment as the bottleneck"
agent: theseus
scope: structural
sourcer: ASIL, SIPRI
related_claims: ["[[AI alignment is a coordination problem not a technical problem]]", "[[specifying human values in code is intractable because our goals contain hidden complexity comparable to visual perception]]", "[[the alignment problem dissolves when human values are continuously woven into the system rather than specified in advance]]"]
supports:
- Autonomous weapons systems capable of militarily effective targeting decisions cannot satisfy IHL requirements of distinction, proportionality, and precaution, making sufficiently capable autonomous weapons potentially illegal under existing international law without requiring new treaty text
reweave_edges:
- Autonomous weapons systems capable of militarily effective targeting decisions cannot satisfy IHL requirements of distinction, proportionality, and precaution, making sufficiently capable autonomous weapons potentially illegal under existing international law without requiring new treaty text|supports|2026-04-06
- International humanitarian law and AI alignment research independently converged on the same technical limitation that autonomous systems cannot be adequately predicted understood or explained|related|2026-04-08
related:
- International humanitarian law and AI alignment research independently converged on the same technical limitation that autonomous systems cannot be adequately predicted understood or explained
---

# Legal scholars and AI alignment researchers independently converged on the same core problem: AI cannot implement human value judgments reliably, as evidenced by IHL proportionality requirements and alignment specification challenges both identifying irreducible human judgment as the bottleneck

Two independent intellectual traditions—international humanitarian law and AI alignment research—have converged on the same fundamental problem through different pathways. Legal scholars analyzing autonomous weapons argue that IHL requirements (proportionality, distinction, precaution) cannot be satisfied by AI systems because these judgments require human value assessments that resist algorithmic specification. AI alignment researchers argue that specifying human values in code is intractable due to hidden complexity. Both communities identify the same structural impossibility: context-dependent human value judgments cannot be reliably encoded in autonomous systems. The legal community's 'meaningful human control' definition problem (ranging from 'human in the loop' to 'human in control') mirrors the alignment community's specification problem. This convergence is significant because it suggests the problem is not domain-specific but fundamental to the nature of value judgments. The legal framework adds an enforcement dimension: if AI cannot satisfy IHL requirements, deployment may already be illegal under existing law, creating governance pressure without requiring new coordination.